On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Harald Welte wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:15:53PM -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
>
> > Is the following patch correct? ip_conntrack_event_cache should never be
> > called with ip_conntrack_lock held and ct_add_counters does not need to be
> > called with ip_conntrack_lock held.
>
> No, it's not correct. ct_add_countes has to be called from within
> write_lock_bh() on ip_conntrack_lock.
>
> So if you keep the ct_add_counters() call where it is and only apply the
> rest of your patch (i.e. deferring of ip_conntrack_event_cache() call),
> then I think your patch would work.
>
> However, the whole eventcache needs to be audited, it's called from a
> number of places.
>
> As Patrick wrote he's working on a solution, I'm not going to intervene
> or replicate his work. As a interim solution I'd suggest disabling
> CONFIG_IP_NF_CT_ACCT [which can't be vital anyway, since it was only
> added in net-2.6.14 (and thus -mm)].
Thanks for the explanation Harald, i based the ct_add_counters assumption
on other callers of it.
Thanks,
Zwane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |